7 ms·
This article is 100% AI written. The data was interesting, the commentary overly verbose and hard to gain useful insights from.
by Retro_Dev 1mo ago
This article is 100% AI written. The data was interesting, the commentary overly verbose and hard to gain useful insights from.
- aduffy 1mo agoidk why this is getting downvoted, I also got this sense, plugged it into Pangram and indeed, 80% AI-written score. I guess that's fine, but after awhile I get a spidey-sense reading something that feels like a Claude session.
- nullsanity 1mo ago[flagged]
- Seattle3503 1mo agoSad to see you getting voted down. But I guess both the pro-AI crowd and anti-AI crowd hate Pangram.
- vips7L 1mo agoSad little world we live in tbh.
- inigyou 1mo agobecause it's not much better than an RNG?
- Seattle3503 1mo agoWhat data supports that conclusion about Pangram?
- kbelder 1mo agoI always got voted down when I posted the evaluation of the parent articles I got from my Ouija board. I just want to help people understand whether they should just reject bad articles, without having to bother reading them. I'm moving on to evaluating articles with a modified lie detector test and tarot cards, I'm sure that'll help my credibility and give my public rejections more authority.
- Seattle3503 1mo agoDo you have evidence Pangram is unreliable? There are independent evaluations [1, 2] showing it works, and it's getting used more and more scientific papers. Have you used it or evaluated it yourself? What do you think these other evaluators are doing or getting wrong? 1: https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insights/artificial-writing-and-automated-detection/ https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insights/artificial-writing-and-aut... 2: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.15654 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.15654
- kbelder 1mo agoI don't doubt that those detectors are generally correct. Pangram seems to be particularly accurate. I see independent evaluations ranging from 97% accurate to over 99%. Frankly, I somewhat doubt those numbers, but I do agree that LLM usage can be fairly accurately detected. But procedurally, there are huge issues involved with automated tools used to harm other people. You are one of the 0.5% percent of people whose article was flagged as LLM-generated when it wasn't, one of the false positives. What do you do? Argue? The accusers will claim that you're 99.5% likely to be lying. It's the same issue we have with automated customer service, automated insurance claims, and so forth. It is usually correct, and terrifically unjust when it fails... at which point there is no recourse. In a perverse sense, its accuracy can be a drawback, because if the false positive rate low enough, nobody is going to believe you when you're falsely accused. And people will be falsely accused. I think it's ironic that it seems like it capitalizes on the same flaw that most LLM-posting does... "Chat GPT is usually right, I'm going with it." You shouldn't post an LLM article without independently validating its claims, so that there is a responsible person in the loop. The same is true for rejections and accusations, but more so, because they're more damaging.
- Seattle3503 1mo agoHold on, let's not move the goalposts yet. Do you still consider Pangram on par with a "Ouija board" or "tarot cards"?
- vinc 1mo agoA good part of the article feels like it was written by Claude indeed: - "The reallocations were real, but they were never the bottleneck." - "Note that the villain is not the branch itself. It is the branch that [..]" - "Same million floats. Same threshold. Same function." - "Notice the price we paid though."
- gblargg 1mo agoI'm apparently not good at spotting it. I was put off by the overly dramatic presentation. It gets tiring that the author apparently finds this more exciting than I do, and writes like it's enthralling. I just assumed it was an excess of enthusiasm or the first experience with this kind of thing. If it's AI, I'm way behind the game noticing it.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- flohofwoe 1mo ago"The smoking gun" is right there in the text ;) (but also things like "Same million floats. Same threshold. Same function."). Don't know if other models have that same specific style, but it looks very 'claude-y'. I wouldn't be surprised though if (especially) non-native speakers unconsciously start adopting the Claude writing style when they stare all day long at Claude generated text at work.
- StilesCrisis 1mo agoI would assume non-native speakers talk to Claude in their own language. Now I'm curious if Claude's weird quirks of speech are unique in each language or if they carry over!
- enedil 1mo agoThis isn't a necessarily true assumption. I my social circles of non native English speakers, most of us use English to talk with models.
- brettermeier 1mo agoI switch languages randomly.
- StilesCrisis 1mo ago
- altmanaltman 1mo agoClick on their blog index page, see posts going back to early 2010s and use the same writing style. He must have been time travelling and using AI all this time!
- IshKebab 1mo agoI think he's asked it to write in his specific style, or possibly he has edited parts of it to his style, or maybe used AI to generate the initial draft. Something like that anyway. There are some very clear AI tells (smoking guns if you like), but most of it does not read like the prose AI produces by default. Author if you are here I am curious about your writing process, and why you didn't remove the obvious AI tells.
- grey-area 1mo agoI had a look at their blog page out of curiosity, not that you can prove much from the purported dates and text on a blog, which could be edited at any time. The blog posts from 2010s are in a completely different style and written by a human: https://www.greyblake.com/blog/vim-preview-plugin/ https://www.greyblake.com/blog/vim-preview-plugin/ https://www.greyblake.com/blog/how-to-install-firefox-iceweasel-7-on-debian-squeeze/ https://www.greyblake.com/blog/how-to-install-firefox-icewea... https://www.greyblake.com/blog/unexpected-ruby-behaviour/ https://www.greyblake.com/blog/unexpected-ruby-behaviour/ ... This new blog post is clearly AI edited (probably 'improved' with AI), the old ones are not.
- mynameisash 1mo agoThe first link you cited[0] shows up on the Wayback Machine[1] for the first time on 2022-05-16 - more than 11 years after it was purportedly written. [0] https://www.greyblake.com/blog/vim-preview-plugin/ https://www.greyblake.com/blog/vim-preview-plugin/ [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220516225844/https://www.greyblake.com/blog/vim-preview-plugin/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220516225844/https://www.greyb...
- altmanaltman 1mo ago
- HackerThemAll 1mo agoIt was fun to read and insightful for me, not too artificial, and not too verbose. I'm glad my internal AI detector doesn't win over my curiosity to learn.
- flohofwoe 1mo agoThe main problem with the article is that the idea to influence backend code generation decisions via specific highlevel code constructs is mostly just mystical bullshit (some compilers do detect specific patterns - usually for bit twiddling hacks, but not on a basic level like control flow optimization). Using a highlevel language construct like "y += (x > 0) as usize;" doesn't "switch on" branchless code just because the source code looks branchless, compilers are not that dumb anymore. E.g. I bet that writing if (x > 0) { y += 1; } ...generates the exact same code after optimization, otherwise I would consider that an LLVM bug. The only reliable way is to mostly bypass the optimizer via simd intrinsics, or drop down to assembler, everything else is just cargo culting. (fwiw I can't shake the feeling now that the article is recycled, I'm pretty sure I saw those exact same code examples in another "branchless" blog post, but maybe for a different language - because the next question was ineviatably "then why is the code using "if" slower? answer: because it also behaves differently). Or maybe I'm just having a strong dejavu ;)
- claudetard 1mo agoAnd, on some architectures, y+=(x>0) is branchful!
- flohofwoe 1mo agoPS: > fwiw I can't shake the feeling now that the article is recycled Ok, I remembered wrong. The article I remembered was this: https://tiki.li/blog/blqsort https://tiki.li/blog/blqsort HN link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48375445 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48375445 It's peddling the exact same myth though.
- wegwerper 1mo agoAgree. Interesting topic but why destroy your own credibility and reputation by shoveling llm-assisted slop to us here at hn? The post should be flagged, and in general, i wish hn would adopt a no-tolerance policy to enhanced posting like this. So what if the original text, if it existed in a human written form at all, had weird textual quirks and prose issues the author wished to hide. That texture's what makes humans interesting to engage with in the first place.
- hamburglar 1mo agoI think I need to build “Hacker News Except All Arguments About Whether Or Not Something Is AI-Written Are Filtered Out”
- __s 1mo agoI just scrolled through & read the code snippets. Interesting enough solution at end
- willtemperley 1mo agoYep, “instinct“ and “smoking gun” are LLM favourites. I find it really annoying when the LLM says “good instinct” as if I’m an animal barely able to think.